Rating naval units can get extremely complicated very quickly. So many variables, so many factors to consider.

Let's take one example. Gun power. To calculate gun power you need: rounds of ammo carried per gun, shell penetration data (both horizontal and vertical) for a spectrum of combat ranges, rate of fire (not at important as you might think), type of fire control (centralized? non-centralized? etc.), type of range finding (radar? stereoscopic? etc.), shell weight, crew training and experience, firing arcs (mounted on centerline? other?), and probably some other data that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Then, once you have gathered the data you need, you then must create formulae that work. This is very difficult. For instance, I mentioned above that rate of fire isn't as important as you might think. Why not? Because it takes a certain amount of time for a shell to travel to its target (a shell that has an initial muzzle velocity of 2500mps might take nearly a minute, or more, to travel 30,000m due to the ballistic curve it follows to get to the target (it's not traveling in a straight line at a constant speed)). Then it takes time to analyze the results of the salvo. Then it takes time to make corrections for the next salvo. Then, depending on the type of fire control used, it takes time to order and execute the next salvo. Thus, for example, even if a big gun has a rate of fire of, say, 2 rounds per minute, that rate of fire is never practically achieved in combat. Indeed, a well-trained and experienced crew might be doing good to get off a salvo every 90 seconds (at 30,000m) instead of the 30 seconds (2 rounds per minute) that the gun is theoretically capable of. And this means that simply taking 2 rounds per minute and applying that to a gun-power formula without any modifications (as described above) is going to produce gun-power ratings far greater than what the gun could effectively achieve in actual combat. And this is just one relatively simple example.

I'm not saying that naval units can't be rated, but I am saying that rating naval units is not simple and involves many variables (some of which are highly inter-related).

For Gun ranges simply multiply by .91 to convert yards to meters (36in/39.4in).

My figures had the yards corrected to meters (and the pounds corrected to kilograms, etc.).

quote:

For final range value for TOAW data multiply primary fun range x 2 then divide x 3. Ensure that extended range is enabled. This change will attenuate the effects of the secondary/tertiary AP values by halving the AP value at longer ranges (last 1/3 range) where these guns cannot fire, thus their AP factors should not be counted at these reanges.

My judgement was that halving the AP at full range was too much. Far more than half the AP strength was usually in the main battery. Instead, the way I modeled it was to calculate average performance. The secondary battery only added a fraction of its strength relative to its area of coverage vs. the area of coverage of the main battery. On average, with the ship operating at random ranges, this gives a reasonable average strength value.

Rating naval units can get extremely complicated very quickly. So many variables, so many factors to consider.

Let's take one example. Gun power. To calculate gun power you need: rounds of ammo carried per gun, shell penetration data (both horizontal and vertical) for a spectrum of combat ranges, rate of fire (not at important as you might think), type of fire control (centralized? non-centralized? etc.), type of range finding (radar? stereoscopic? etc.), shell weight, crew training and experience, firing arcs (mounted on centerline? other?), and probably some other data that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Crew training and experience would be modeled by the unit proficiency. For the other factors, remember that TOAW doesn't actually simulate the launch of shells, their flight to the target, and their impact on the target. It just has an AP value. That's going to be more or less relative.

quote:

Then, once you have gathered the data you need, you then must create formulae that work. This is very difficult. For instance, I mentioned above that rate of fire isn't as important as you might think. Why not? Because it takes a certain amount of time for a shell to travel to its target (a shell that has an initial muzzle velocity of 2500mps might take nearly a minute, or more, to travel 30,000m due to the ballistic curve it follows to get to the target (it's not traveling in a straight line at a constant speed)). Then it takes time to analyze the results of the salvo. Then it takes time to make corrections for the next salvo.

All that is done with multiple shells in the air. They don't just fire one shell, wait for it to land, calculate the corrections, and only then launch the next shell. They fire more or less as fast as they can and keep track of all the shells - many of which are from different guns and even different ordinances.

quote:

Then, depending on the type of fire control used, it takes time to order and execute the next salvo. Thus, for example, even if a big gun has a rate of fire of, say, 2 rounds per minute, that rate of fire is never practically achieved in combat. Indeed, a well-trained and experienced crew might be doing good to get off a salvo every 90 seconds (at 30,000m) instead of the 30 seconds (2 rounds per minute) that the gun is theoretically capable of. And this means that simply taking 2 rounds per minute and applying that to a gun-power formula without any modifications (as described above) is going to produce gun-power ratings far greater than what the gun could effectively achieve in actual combat. And this is just one relatively simple example.

I expect that the values in WitP were effective rates, not some theoretical maximum. Regardless it would be true for all guns, so the relative values will be more or less right. Again, TOAW isn't simulating shell flight & etc.

All I am saying is that there are factors and variables that need to be accounted for correctly if the final rating is going to be an accurate reflection of that naval unit's historical combat capabilities in terms of TOAW.

You state that ships fired while they still had shells in the air. In some cases I agree (antiaircraft, for instance), but in other cases I disagree. For example, the Yamato had an orange-red die in their shells to mark the shell splashes. There is no point in having colored die in the shells unless the shells are being spotted and corrected for before the next salvo is fired.

But even if you want to argue this fact, there is an absolute limit to gun performance and that limit is ammo supply. The Yamato carried somewhere around 80-120 shells per gun (and not all of those rounds would be armor piercing). Let’s say that the Yamato carries 100 rounds per gun and 75 of those are armor piercing. Now, in a game turn that lasts anywhere from several hours to several days, the Yamato can easily fire all of its armor piercing ammo in a single turn. So, once again, the theoretical rate of fire of the Yamato’s guns is basically insignificant since ammo supply is limited. Therefore, any formula that puts a lot of emphasis on rate of fire is going to produce results that are out of calibration with TOAW’s game scale (i.e., inaccurate and unrealistic). Instead, given TOAW’s game scale, ammo supply is WAY more important than rate of fire (in terms of being useful for TOAW). And I don’t know how WitP handled RoF vs. ammo supply in its calculations. But the ratings you posted earlier in this thread seemed “off” in this regard.

Anyway, I believe that in terms of TOAW’s game scale, the most important factors that matter for gun performance ratings (and not counting antiaircraft since that should be calculated differently, only talking surface to surface gunfire here) are:

ORIGINAL: vahauser You state that ships fired while they still had shells in the air. In some cases I agree (antiaircraft, for instance), but in other cases I disagree. For example, the Yamato had an orange-red die in their shells to mark the shell splashes. There is no point in having colored die in the shells unless the shells are being spotted and corrected for before the next salvo is fired.

Disagree all you want. You'll still be wrong. They kept track of multiple shells in the air. They had to. Otherwise, only one gun on one ship could be fired per 2-3 minutes. Admittedly, things could get really complicated if you've got several ships with multiple guns of different sizes firing. But that's war. The spotting and correcting was still done, but the waiting was omitted. So, maybe shell number 5 was corrected for the results of shell number 1, etc.

Think of a garden hose. Can you keep the garden hose on your dog as he runs around? Or do you have to fire off a drop at a time, then wait for each drop to hit before launching another?

quote:

But even if you want to argue this fact, there is an absolute limit to gun performance and that limit is ammo supply. The Yamato carried somewhere around 80-120 shells per gun (and not all of those rounds would be armor piercing). Let’s say that the Yamato carries 100 rounds per gun and 75 of those are armor piercing. Now, in a game turn that lasts anywhere from several hours to several days, the Yamato can easily fire all of its armor piercing ammo in a single turn. So, once again, the theoretical rate of fire of the Yamato’s guns is basically insignificant since ammo supply is limited. Therefore, any formula that puts a lot of emphasis on rate of fire is going to produce results that are out of calibration with TOAW’s game scale (i.e., inaccurate and unrealistic). Instead, given TOAW’s game scale, ammo supply is WAY more important than rate of fire (in terms of being useful for TOAW). And I don’t know how WitP handled RoF vs. ammo supply in its calculations. But the ratings you posted earlier in this thread seemed “off” in this regard.

TOAW handles supply issues. This is no different than for any other piece of artillery. Ship-to-ship engagements don't last too long. Long term ground support would see the ships being resupplied at sea, but TOAW models their lower fire rates as ammo gets scarce (their combat strength drops with supply level).

quote:

Anyway, I believe that in terms of TOAW’s game scale, the most important factors that matter for gun performance ratings (and not counting antiaircraft since that should be calculated differently, only talking surface to surface gunfire here) are:

Crew training and experience (already taken care of by TOAW’s proficiency ratings) Fire control and rangefinding (i.e., accuracy)

35 years ago, around the time I first started to play naval minatures, the first naval wargame I played was called "Fletcher Pratt's Naval Rules" (or something like that). You might want to see if you can find that game since it gave 'aggregate total' ship ratings for defense and offense very similar to what you are trying to achieve.

25 years ago, I started playing a newer set of naval miniatures called “Seapower”. This was a more detailed and accurate modeling of naval warfare. Seapower gave more complete naval ratings compared to Fletcher Pratt.

15 years ago, I worked for GR/D as a designer/developer for their Europa boardgame series (mainly air system, but kept my fingers in the naval pie too, so to speak). After my time at GR/D, I worked for Pacifica Games as the primary developer, and not only shaped the naval system, but rated the naval units as well. The past several posts I have been drawing from memory. But I think I have a box or two of data and calculations regarding naval units and naval ratings gathering dust in the garage or attic or somewhere. I will try to find those boxes and dig through them to see if I can help you.

P.S. So sorry if you want to believe that the Bismark or Hood or Yamato (etc.) fired salvos while previous salvos were still in the air. No ship commander I’ve ever heard of would ever order such a thing except under one condition: if they had a helpless sitting-duck target that they had already zeroed, then they might, maybe, conceivably order such a thing. But in actual combat under variable sea and weather conditions against an enemy who is still maneuvering and fighting back? So sorry. Anyway, I’ll try to find those boxes of data. . .

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Think of a garden hose. Can you keep the garden hose on your dog as he runs around? Or do you have to fire off a drop at a time, then wait for each drop to hit before launching another?

Hmm. Where do you live? I need to contact your local SPCA about this...

TOAW handles supply issues. This is no different than for any other piece of artillery. Ship-to-ship engagements don't last too long. Long term ground support would see the ships being resupplied at sea, but TOAW models their lower fire rates as ammo gets scarce (their combat strength drops with supply level).

Well, let's face it: the TOAW supply model really sucks when it comes to artillery-type weapons -- like ships. Their rate of fire should stay the same until they burn off their shells: then drop abruptly to zero. You don't want this to happen, stop firing.

It's not like infantry, where you can indeed begin conserving ammunition, bring up a few cases of ammo somehow, tell the machine-gunner to fire only if there's a concerted attack, etc. Artillery uses its shells and it should become useless. Might as well have big pieces of agricultural machinery standing around...

35 years ago, around the time I first started to play naval minatures, the first naval wargame I played was called "Fletcher Pratt's Naval Rules" (or something like that). You might want to see if you can find that game since it gave 'aggregate total' ship ratings for defense and offense very similar to what you are trying to achieve.

25 years ago, I started playing a newer set of naval miniatures called “Seapower”. This was a more detailed and accurate modeling of naval warfare. Seapower gave more complete naval ratings compared to Fletcher Pratt.

15 years ago, I worked for GR/D as a designer/developer for their Europa boardgame series (mainly air system, but kept my fingers in the naval pie too, so to speak). After my time at GR/D, I worked for Pacifica Games as the primary developer, and not only shaped the naval system, but rated the naval units as well. The past several posts I have been drawing from memory. But I think I have a box or two of data and calculations regarding naval units and naval ratings gathering dust in the garage or attic or somewhere. I will try to find those boxes and dig through them to see if I can help you.

I've got plenty of board naval wargames with agregate ratings of such as well. But I figure the WitP data are better. And it doesn't sound like any of those were simulators.

Have you ever heard of "Task Force 1942"? It was a DOS-based simulator of the Guadalcanal campaign. It actually allowed you to sit in the ships fire control, and fire the guns. (You could also forgo that and just function as the Task Force commander.) The shells' trajectories were then actually simulated all the way to the target. There was a "computer" you could turn on that gave you a recommended transom and elevation. It's accuracy inproved as more and more shells came close to the target. But it would then lower its accuracy as the target changed course, etc. Clearly, the "computer" would represent the end product of trackers following each shell, noting its effect, and figureing a correction accordingly. There were (it was Guadalcanal after all) plenty of other guns and ships firing on both sides. The sky would be full of shell trajectories. Other ships and guns were controlled by the game's AI.

Note that those AI controlled guns didn't wait for the shells to land and corrections to be made before firing again. They fired as fast as possible.

quote:

P.S. So sorry if you want to believe that the Bismark or Hood or Yamato (etc.) fired salvos while previous salvos were still in the air.

Thanks, I will.

quote:

No ship commander I’ve ever heard of would ever order such a thing except under one condition: if they had a helpless sitting-duck target that they had already zeroed, then they might, maybe, conceivably order such a thing. But in actual combat under variable sea and weather conditions against an enemy who is still maneuvering and fighting back? So sorry. Anyway, I’ll try to find those boxes of data. . .

If so, that could account for why those three ships were all sunk. If you're going to fire one shell for each three your target is firing back at you, you had better prepare to swim! The corrections are transient anyway (as the ships maneuver), and improve with more data.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Think of a garden hose. Can you keep the garden hose on your dog as he runs around? Or do you have to fire off a drop at a time, then wait for each drop to hit before launching another?

Hmm. Where do you live? I need to contact your local SPCA about this...

Alright. Correction: Can you keep the garden hose on your wife as she runs around?

TOAW handles supply issues. This is no different than for any other piece of artillery. Ship-to-ship engagements don't last too long. Long term ground support would see the ships being resupplied at sea, but TOAW models their lower fire rates as ammo gets scarce (their combat strength drops with supply level).

Well, let's face it: the TOAW supply model really sucks when it comes to artillery-type weapons -- like ships. Their rate of fire should stay the same until they burn off their shells: then drop abruptly to zero. You don't want this to happen, stop firing.

It's not like infantry, where you can indeed begin conserving ammunition, bring up a few cases of ammo somehow, tell the machine-gunner to fire only if there's a concerted attack, etc. Artillery uses its shells and it should become useless. Might as well have big pieces of agricultural machinery standing around...

You're completely wrong, but we just had that discussion and I'm not having it again.

You're completely wrong, but we just had that discussion and I'm not having it again.

In your previous arguments on this topic, you relied on the idea that artillery will fire more slowly when they have fewer rounds. This is true up to a point for land-based batteries which aren't particularly vulnerable. However, if one battleship is engaging another, battleship number 1 is not going to fire more slowly because they're short of 15" rounds. They're going to fire as fast as possible until they run out, because if the enemy knocks out your main batteries then the supply of ammunition for them will be irrelevant.

Moreover your idea that guns should be able to keep firing indefinitely relied on them receiving supply gradually over the turn and the shells being fed straight into the breaches. This doesn't work at sea- the supply really does get delivered all in one hit.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious In your previous arguments on this topic, you relied on the idea that artillery will fire more slowly when they have fewer rounds. This is true up to a point for land-based batteries which aren't particularly vulnerable. However, if one battleship is engaging another, battleship number 1 is not going to fire more slowly because they're short of 15" rounds. They're going to fire as fast as possible until they run out, because if the enemy knocks out your main batteries then the supply of ammunition for them will be irrelevant.

That BB vs. BB action is very unlikely to happen when either ship is low on ammo. The primary use of naval units (in TOAW) is to bombard land units. In that case, they will function just like any other artillery.

quote:

Moreover your idea that guns should be able to keep firing indefinitely relied on them receiving supply gradually over the turn and the shells being fed straight into the breaches. This doesn't work at sea- the supply really does get delivered all in one hit.

What? There was no such reliance. Rather, the reliance was on the retention of a significant buffer stockpile - augmented by resupply during the turn.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious In your previous arguments on this topic, you relied on the idea that artillery will fire more slowly when they have fewer rounds. This is true up to a point for land-based batteries which aren't particularly vulnerable. However, if one battleship is engaging another, battleship number 1 is not going to fire more slowly because they're short of 15" rounds. They're going to fire as fast as possible until they run out, because if the enemy knocks out your main batteries then the supply of ammunition for them will be irrelevant.

That BB vs. BB action is very unlikely to happen when either ship is low on ammo. The primary use of naval units (in TOAW) is to bombard land units. In that case, they will function just like any other artillery.

quote:

Moreover your idea that guns should be able to keep firing indefinitely relied on them receiving supply gradually over the turn and the shells being fed straight into the breaches. This doesn't work at sea- the supply really does get delivered all in one hit.

What? There was no such reliance. Rather, the reliance was on the retention of a significant buffer stockpile - augmented by resupply during the turn.

In the one case I'm aware of, you're quite wrong. The British off Crete fired off all their AA shells -- then had to just take their medicine.

After all, there's no sense in 'conserving your ammo' if the result will be your getting sunk with that buffer still in the magazines. You keep firing -- and hope like hell the attacks stop before you run out.

As to land combat, if I'm 'completely wrong,' let's consider this. In OPART, artillery retains about a third (or a half, or some significant part) of its firepower regardless of the state of its ammunition stocks. Perhaps you'd care to look up the final Soviet assaults on the Stalingrad pocket. Find out if German artillery was still contributing significantly to the defense...after all, in OPART-land, it would.

Really, you're wrong, of course. In OPART-land, Sixth army's tanks, trucks, artillery -- all would retain good chunk of their abilities indefinitely. Paulus was just being a wuss when he claimed he was incapable of attempting offensive action after a certain date. His tanks could still roll, his artillery could still fire, they don't need fuel or shells -- what was he talking about?

You appear to dogmatically defend whatever aspect of the status quo you're not interested in modifying at the moment. First, these defenses usually have nothing except your assertiveness to rest on, and secondly, it's not at all helpful to have to keep dealing with someone who wants to insist we don't need to put on the snow chains because he doesn't want it to be snowing, and so therefore it's not. The fact is that the OPART model for the effects of declining supply works okay for infantry -- it doesn't work at all for the more fuel- and munitions-dependent arms.

As to land combat, if I'm 'completely wrong,' let's consider this. In OPART, artillery retains about a third (or a half, or some significant part) of its firepower regardless of the state of its ammunition stocks. Perhaps you'd care to look up the final Soviet assaults on the Stalingrad pocket. Find out if German artillery was still contributing significantly to the defense...after all, in OPART-land, it would.

In Stalingrad, the Germans were cut off from supply. In TOAW terms they would be rated "Unsupplied". As such, they would lose guns to supply attrition, representing guns dropping out due to lack of ammo. The TOAW supply model is very, very tough on out of supply forces.

Yes, you are completely wrong. And please don't make that same stupid mistake again. I've had to correct you on it before on the other board, too.

Yes, you are completely wrong. And please don't make that same stupid mistake again. I've had to correct you on it before on the other board, too.

That's the 'Curtis' we all know and love so well. So tell me: should we just let you state whatever you think the case to be and refrain from comment?

What is it with the verbal abuse, anyway? I'm not talking about its merits otherwise -- I'm just trying to ascertain what brings it on. It's not a response to offensiveness on my part -- I've certainly been far ruder than I just was. Nor is it exasperation -- it's not like this conversation has gone on very long.

Maybe you resort to it when you just don't have anything better to say. Is that it? Sort of your own little alternative to admitting that you're wrong? 'I guess you're right' in LeMay-talk?

Let's take being completely out of supply. Sure, the guns will evaporate -- so will the infantry. The Russians should have Stalingrad by Christmas.

Or...let's keep the supply. I'm aware of several scenarios where the ability of artillery to keep firing regardless of its supply state causes serious difficulties. Similarly with tanks that keep rolling.

The supply model is a problem -- in this as in several other respects. Announcing that I'm 'completely wrong' and 'stupid' won't alter that fact.

That BB vs. BB action is very unlikely to happen when either ship is low on ammo. The primary use of naval units (in TOAW) is to bombard land units.

Then what's your problem? This works fine in TOAW as it stands. If you're not interested in simulating battles between ships, what is the point of this thread?

Under the current system, a ship starts rationing ammo as soon as it gets below 100% supply- it becomes less effective in combat.

?? Ship-to-ship combat in CFNA, Okinawa 1945, France 1944, Soviet Union 1941? Not likely. That was not the purpose of this thread. I just wanted to get the Ranges, Shell weights, AP, AAA, and defense strengths right for various ship classes - which can vary greatly within types. I suppose Erik might have been differently motiviated, though.

Ship-to-ship combat is going to be very hard to simulate in TOAW and will need a lot of special features to get it anywhere near right.

To get some idea of the problems, try setting up two ship units in combat adjacent to each other and see what happens. They will no longer be treated like artillery units firing and counterfiring at each other, but as ground assaults. Both sides tend to take massive losses regardless of odds.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright That's the 'Curtis' we all know and love so well. So tell me: should we just let you state whatever you think the case to be and refrain from comment?

What is it with the verbal abuse, anyway? I'm not talking about its merits otherwise -- I'm just trying to ascertain what brings it on. It's not a response to offensiveness on my part -- I've certainly been far ruder than I just was. Nor is it exasperation -- it's not like this conversation has gone on very long.

Alright, I posted in a hurry. Although I directed the slur at your statement and not you, I appologize. But note that your post I was responding to had a full paragraph of personal comments about me.

quote:

Let's take being completely out of supply. Sure, the guns will evaporate -- so will the infantry. The Russians should have Stalingrad by Christmas.

Or...let's keep the supply. I'm aware of several scenarios where the ability of artillery to keep firing regardless of its supply state causes serious difficulties. Similarly with tanks that keep rolling.

Or do the latter for a while, then the start the former at some point.

quote:

The supply model is a problem -- in this as in several other respects. Announcing that I'm 'completely wrong' and 'stupid' won't alter that fact.

I've not said otherwise. What I said you were wrong about was your specific statement about artillery blowing off all its ammo without any consideration of how much they have left. Don't extrapolate that to a defense of every aspect of the TOAW supply system.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, this argument is to some extent circular. TOAW's limitations pretty much rule out scenarios where ship-to-ship combat would be important -- so there are few scenarios where it's of any importance. Voila -- ship to ship combat is unimportant.

It's like if I'm restricted to a wheelchair. Well, sure enough -- pretty soon my lifestyle contains few activities where being able to walk would be helpful. This hardly demonstrates that I'm not crippled.

It'd be great if OPART had what was needed to permit scenarios covering Norway, Sealion, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Solomons and New Guinea properly. As it is, one either has to (a) just omit great chunks of the action that were in fact critical, or (b) accept a mass of house rules.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Disagree all you want. You'll still be wrong. They kept track of multiple shells in the air. They had to. Otherwise, only one gun on one ship could be fired per 2-3 minutes. Admittedly, things could get really complicated . . . .

Multiple rounds in the air? Where does this come from? I could understand if the target was fixed on land, or close enough to be targeted over open sights, but in this case the target is thousands of meters away, moving at speed and maneuvering.

I don’t profess to be a naval warfare expert, but no account that I have ever read describes big ship combat as firing multiple shot before the fall of the previous shot was plotted. Not Jutland, not Leyte, not the Falklands (1914), not Tsushima (actually Tsushima might qualify, but it is not a modern era battle) . . . at least not until the target was dead in the water.

What is your source(s) for this assertion? Hope you have more than an isolated occurrence to back up your statement. This is another case where you seem to be claiming a general/global case based on opinion with little in the way of real world back up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis LemayThink of a garden hose. Can you keep the garden hose on your dog as he runs around? Or do you have to fire off a drop at a time, then wait for each drop to hit before launching another?.

Hope you’re thick skinned, but this is undoubtedly the silliest analogy I have ever read. Squirting a hose at a dog being compared to combat between battleships. The physics not withstanding . . . think you can do better and water hoses and dogs.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones Multiple rounds in the air? Where does this come from? I could understand if the target was fixed on land, or close enough to be targeted over open sights, but in this case the target is thousands of meters away, moving at speed and maneuvering.

I mentioned the "Task Force 1942" simulator. It was extremely realistic. And it clearly illustrated how dynamic the corrections had to be, because, as you stated, the target is maneuvering. That is actually good reason not to wait for the shells to land. The sim's computer got more accurate the more data points it got.

quote:

I don’t profess to be a naval warfare expert, but no account that I have ever read describes big ship combat as firing multiple shot before the fall of the previous shot was plotted. Not Jutland, not Leyte, not the Falklands (1914), not Tsushima (actually Tsushima might qualify, but it is not a modern era battle) . . . at least not until the target was dead in the water.

I wasn't limiting it to "big ships". Think cruisers, DDs, etc., where the rate of fire allows several rounds to be fired during the transit of any of them. Probably not the case for BBs main guns.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis LemayThink of a garden hose. Can you keep the garden hose on your dog as he runs around? Or do you have to fire off a drop at a time, then wait for each drop to hit before launching another?.

Hope you’re thick skinned, but this is undoubtedly the silliest analogy I have ever read. Squirting a hose at a dog being compared to combat between battleships. The physics not withstanding . . . think you can do better and water hoses and dogs.

I'm kind of proud of it. I think it illustrates very clearly that you can do the corrections on the fly.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones Multiple rounds in the air? Where does this come from? I could understand if the target was fixed on land, or close enough to be targeted over open sights, but in this case the target is thousands of meters away, moving at speed and maneuvering.

I mentioned the "Task Force 1942" simulator. It was extremely realistic. And it clearly illustrated how dynamic the corrections had to be, because, as you stated, the target is maneuvering. That is actually good reason not to wait for the shells to land. The sim's computer got more accurate the more data points it got...

You've used this approach before -- arguing from the evidence of games. Simulations can be accurate, but they are not necessarily accurate. I'd be inclined to find supporting statements from some 1940's naval gunnery text before being as certain as you are. For one thing, no doubt 'Task Force 1942' can track shells in the air and distinguish which splash went with which salvo -- but could the actual warships of the era?

Maybe -- but I wouldn't take 'Task Force 1942' as proof that they could.

...and before you fly off the handle and start berating me, let me repeat a fundamental difference between a book and a game. A book can just avoid a point of uncertainty, or qualify its answer. A game has to put in something -- even it doesn't know. If I'm writing a book about an operation, and I can't find out some fact, I can just say so, or not get involved in the question at all. I was reading Benny Morris' book on the Arab Legion and the 1948 War. He notes a discrepancy between how many 24 pounders the Legion was shipped, and how many it reported having. Does he resolve this? No -- he doesn't need to.

If I'm designing a scenario, I don't have that luxury. The Arab Legion gets x 24 pounders, or it gets y 24 pounders. I have to choose. The author of a book can confine himself to points of certainty; the designer of a game can't. So the designer of 'Task Force 1942' may have known for sure that shells were plotted in flight, he may have guessed, or he might have been quite indifferent as to the truth of the matter. Regardless of the case, he had to come up with a model for naval shellfire -- and he did. Whether it is in fact an accurate model is another matter entirely.